Two types of white nationalists exist in the current climate:
- Those who see white ethnostates as a means to an end of some system of government or economics.
- Those, such as myself, who see white ethnostates as the end itself and government and economics are the means to that end.
Generally speaking, the first type give themselves away when they deliver the classic, ironically old line “We need new ideas” or “modern problems require modern solutions” and such; whether literally stating it or implying it. Then, they usually proceed to deliver their half-cocked ideas about how we can “fix” all this by bringing about — and usually they have no idea how to bring it about — a society into existence which has never actually existed before.
I’ve talked about this regarding libertarians, but something I only recently stumbled upon is called “propertarianism”. It’s this ideology that was brainstormed by one man, Curt Doolittle and some guy on YouTube named John Mark tries to put all the convoluted shit floating around in Doolittle’s noodle into normie-speak.
Basically, they’re obsessed with “truth” and have this extremely-complex idea of what a post-collapse, rightwing, white ethnostate would look like. It involves all these adjudicators and..stuff, ultimately ruled by truth and arbiters of that truth; a kritarchy essentially. They also seek to divide men and women by blaming us for problems caused by men against other men, and losing a race war men were supposed to be fighting. So, that’s a problem.
Anyway, the core tenet of propertarianism — the “revolutionary” sort of idea they tout that springboards the rest of Doolittle’s idea —is that property isn’t just physical wealth, but any metaphysical thing worth defending. This can be opportunity, genetics, or basically anything else that people feel is worth defending.
They take this idea a step further with “might makes right” and also apply it within their proposed society, so it’s not hard to see how this whole thing basically is an unprecedented threesome between ancaps, white nationalists, and kritarchs.
However, this apparently-ground-breaking idea of redefining “property” was intrinsic in all past ethnostates and even present ones. In fact, it’s more accurate to say our current idea of property is the redefinition. The entire concept of an ethnostate is that this is our home, it and all within it is for us, and only us — please go have your own countries.
This idea was only recently abandoned in the west, thanks to democracy, and the only 20th Century, western government that still fervently upheld this “property isn’t just physical” idea was Nazi Germany. In fact, basically everything that Mark and Doolittle criticize about the current system had previously-found solutions in Nazi Germany and other past governments.
This obviously raises the point of “Why not just advocate for National Socialism or something similar from the past, then?” Because, regarding what they seem to want to achieve in terms of property, at least on a collective scale, and making sure that “the left can never win again”, the Nazis were incredibly successful at that. We know that its economic, and its fundamental government structure, works to these ends.
Monarchy and western-European feudalism also solved many or all of the problems that these “Propertarians” identify with modern society. For example, they talk about “parasite-proofing” nations and making corruption impossible because of “constitution of truth”, more or less. Well, the thing is: An ethnostate eliminates outside parasites by simply existing and in most of medieval Europe, not only was there no progressive income tax or usury, they literally had protection from economic migrants despite allowing foreign trade. National Socialism, while not free of faults, had the kind of economic success and social cohesion that it did, because it basically just adopted previously-established understandings from centuries past of what makes a nation, who should have what kinds of power, etc. and applied it to modern economics and social policy.
Everything that’s on John Mark’s list up there, was solved by even older systems than the dead-horse ideologies he has identified.
I’m not saying literally everything in nature is great, and there is no perfect system of government, but there are ones that are most accordant with our nature, and nobody has to tell us to organize ourselves into them when left to our own devices.
The truth is that the supermajority of previously-established social orders and governments that we had for thousands of years didn’t suddenly stop working because the steam engine and telegram were invented. They stopped existing because our monarchies — often with the help of (((foreign nomads))) — were overthrown and replaced with Democracy™, which opened us wide up to the demographic and psychological warfare that is responsible for all the woes that have betide Europeans today.
How does one look at the history here and be like, “You know what we need? New ideas!”? To me, all this says is that our old ideas were clearly working better and we should just try that again. There’s also the fact that all the “new ideas” like democracy, communism, feminism, limitless capitalism, globalism, lgbtism, anti-racism, sciencism, and the list just goes on — haven’t exactly worked out great for us.
I’m not interested in “new” ideas on how to build society when preferable ones from the past, that have proven their validity through time, are available to us. I am not, by a longshot, the only one who feels this way. Between Doolittle and John Mark’s followers, there’s probably just over 100k “Propertarians” in the world, and probably not 100k in America itself. The growing support for closed-border, repatriation, and implicitly anti-democracy politicians in Europe means all evidence suggests that, when Mark and Doolittle’s predicted societal collapse comes about, the right will gravitate to traditionalist, nationalist parties to take over and not “Propertarianism” — which has no potential leadership outside of Mark and Doolittle.*
Seems to me that all you need to “Explain the solution”, and all bullet points under it in John Mark’s list, how to leftism-proof your society is: “Any non-democratic, non-communist ethnostate”.
When it comes to the task of saving white people and western civilization from annihilation, why would you suggest we take an unproven, hypothetical, manufactured, “new” solution that we can’t be certain will benefit us as promised, and has little to no tangible evidence that it will come to pass, and has never existed as per proponent description, over ones that we know will give us what we want? Why would you not take the path of least-resistance to achieving your goal, when it is open to you?
Why would you advocate for us to instead adopt your brand-new vision of social order?
*It really seems to be the case that when a couple of guys get together and brainstorm some social engineering for a “new social order”, it’s really just because they want to be in control of society and not because they actually care about the people in it.